The Gap

At class today, the reporting group presented the case about the ethical issues faced by Gap Inc., when they were charged with sourcing from Central American suppliers that had human rights violations and subsistence-level wages in their factories. The Gap Inc. or commonly known as Gap, is an American clothing and accessories retailer that was founded in 1969 and has headquarters in San Francisco, California. The company has several well- known brands such as Old Navy, Banana Republic as well as its namesake.

In this case, Gap was beset with claims that they used factories that resisted union efforts to organize, utilized minors in its production lines and exceeded the maximum workweek hours that were allowed by law. Internal assessment of these factories showed “[Gap’s] investigation has not uncovered any significant evidence…or serious violations of sourcing guidelines”, which is contrary to what was being reported by the National Labor Relations Committee and by the mass media.

At the end of the case, it asks that “Is a company like the Gap morally responsible for the way its suppliers treat their workers?” In my analysis of the case, the answer is in the negative as Gap and its apparel supplier have no employer-employee relationship. However, Gap is morally responsible to implement ethical procurement practices and ensure that their merchandise are not products of sweatshop factories with dubious manufacturing processes.

As a result of this labor controversy, Gap implemented more stringent steps to address this situation and implemented rigorous standards in supplier selection. This is affirmed in their website wherein the company states that:

“We partner with suppliers to build a sustainable value chain that improves workers’ well-being and our business performance.

We assess working conditions and human rights at over 95 percent of the factories — more than 800 facilities — that make our branded apparel at least once per year. We work with factories to fix issues that need to be resolved to meet the international standards in our Code of Vendor Conduct and Human Rights Policy. These often lead to corrective actions that improve working conditions and protect workers’ rights.

Our field team visits factories to meet with workers and managers and assess working conditions. Most team members are locally hired, live in the country or region where factories are located and speak the local language. They often get to know specific factories and workers well over a period of years and take a sincere interest in looking out for workers’ well-being.”